Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSU - WASHINGTON SCHOOL - APU - SPA110001 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 19 Member Carpenter said she thinks this is a great use of this building and it's really a wonderful thing when the community and CSU can come together to use these historic facilities. She thinks it's going to be a great thing. The motion passed 7:0. Other Business: Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Steve Dush, CDNS Director Butch Stockover, Chair Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 18 Member Campana said he's alright with leaving his motion as is (without condition) given his belief that CSU is a good neighbor. Member Schmidt asked if the condition on the APU was changed to say shall be supplemented with intent for dedication of the public right-of-way. Member Carpenter suggested we just leave it out. Member Campana said we have it on the record and he's okay with that. Shepard said what we're asking for is we'd like the dedication of the right-of-way and all improvements will be done on - site with the exception of the alley (which is public). Shepard said we want the dedication and we want these construction (utility) plans in and reviewed before they start the work. If the dedication lags behind that; we're flexible because we're not doing work in the public right-of-way. We can tie that to a CO. Haberecht said he cannot speak for the Board of Governors. He thinks it's potentially unrealistic to tie the dedication of a right-of-way to a CO. To reiterate, there's every intention of dedicating that right-of- way. He anticipates that widening that street is many decades away. Eckman asked if a temporary CO is issued for a year, would that be enough time to get the dedication completed. Haberecht said he's leery of committing to a timeframe of a process that is not entirely under their control. Member Schmidt asked if the Board, in reviewing/approving the purchasing the property, would not also be made aware of the dedication so all the necessary action can be taken. Haberecht said the Board item as it was packaged came before this issue. He said it's a matter of timing. Chair Stockover asked what would happen if they didn't dedicate the right-of-way and the decision was made to widen the street. Couldn't that just be handled with another process? Development engineering staff member Virata said the situation has happened before on Lake Street and on Rampart and Overland for the turn lane. He thinks the City has a process as does CSU. From an Engineering perspective, they're comfortable with offering some flexibility realizing this is an unusual situation. He said he's going to go out on a limb and say he believes we're not going to have a problem. He said there are no immediate plans to widen Shields Street. He said they are respectful of their timing issue. Member Carpenter asked staff if they are okay with a letter of intent. Virata said yes. Member Carpenter asked staff if they'd want a condition to the APU asking for a letter of intent. Virata said yes. Shepard said the condition would then read: The Site Plan Advisory Review shall be supplemented with a Letter of Intent for the Dedication of Public Right -of -Way for Shields Street and a Construction Plan demonstrating compliance with requirements for paving the public alley, paving the north parking lot, constructing a new sidewalk along Scott Street and accommodating the stormwater runoff with water quality treatment and detention resulting from any changes associated with the various public and private improvements. Said Construction Plan shall be submitted and reviewed by City Staff, and revised accordingly, and granted final approval prior to any development work on the site. Member Campana amended his Addition of Permitted Use motion to include the above condition. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7:0. Member Schmidt made a motion to approve the Washington School Site Plan Advisory Review # SPA11001 because the project meets the character, extent and location requirements. Member Hatfield seconded the motion. Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 17 Member Campana said he thinks it's a great use for the building. He said the ramp looks like kind of an' eyesore but he's sure they've thoroughly vetted the options. He asked if they could do some of the ramping internally. Youngblade said the way the exit doors are for each classroom and the way licensing requirements are there have to be two exits from each door that meets the code for exits. One of those doors is internal. She said the way the building is laid out, the other doors are external to the building and there has to be a way to get down via a ramp. Campana said last time he worked on a day care facility, they had one external and one internal exit with two exits for every classroom. Youngblade said correct, it's just the way this building is laid out —main hall and rooms off to the side and out of each of those doors there's an external door to stairs. She said that's why they have the ramp solution they do. Also they occasionally have children in wheel chairs or walkers and they need the ability to get them out to the playgrounds. Member Campana said it baffles him that the LPC is all right with this because it changes the external character so much. Hogestad said what they're trying to do is make it as transparent as possible and not play it up with berming and things. It's a system that if the building were to change again it can be removed and does not harm the building. The idea is to collect all of those rooms to one ramp and exit them quickly. That's the reason why the ramp sets up the way it does. Youngblade said when she looks at the renderings produced by CSU it looks more airy and light than those presented by the neighbor. Campana said he does support its use he just wishes there was something else we could do with that ramp. Member Carpenter asked how it would be landscaped. Hogestad said it would be landscaped at intermediate levels where it has landings and the turnings. Member Campana moved to approve the Addition of Permitted use for project # SPA110001 based on the Facts and Findings included on pages 8, 9 and 10 of the staff report. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Member Smith asked if the condition listed in the staff report needed to be added to the motion for the Addition for Permitted Use (APU) or the Site Plan Advisory Review (SPAR). Shepard said SPAR. Deputy City Attorney Eckman said the SPAR statute said you can approve or disapprove —it doesn't say anything about conditions. He said the zoning issue (APU) is because they haven't requested or received an exemption from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Eckman said the simpler approach is to have the applicant come to the microphone to speak to whether this dedication is and will be a part of this application so the Board's approval could be "clean" and without any condition. Eckman said depending on the Board's prerogative, you may want the condition of the APU but he doesn't recommend it on the SPAR. Haberecht said if Mr. Eckman is referring to the 21 feet of dedicated right-of-way, the best they can do is to submit a letter saying the intent is to give right-of-way. Haberecht said, given their previous experience, it's going to take a very long time for the Board of Governors to actuate the granting of the easement. What they have done in the past, in the case of the Lake Street Garage, was to get a letter with the intent to grant right-of-way. He said there is an issue with the timeliness —it's going to take a very long time to get that request through their system. Member Schmidt said she says that one part of the condition is public right-of-way but there's also reference to the construction plan with the paving of alley. Haberecht said that was part of the CO (Certificate of Occupancy). Member Carpenter asked Mr. Haberecht if he was committing to making that application to the Board of Governors. Haberecht said absolutely. He said there is no issue with granting the right-of-way; the issue is having it contingent in the approval as it affects their deadlines to have the facility open January 1, 2012. Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 16 Wayne Peek lives at 1415 W. Mountain Avenue. His former address was 400 Scott Avenue —one block to the south of Washington School. He'd been in the neighborhood for 37 years and he wanted the Board to know he thoroughly supports the proposal. He likes the idea of the reorientation of the ramp. He thinks that adds to the beneficial quality for the neighborhood. CSU has demonstrated that it's a good neighbor. He thinks the University Center for the Arts is a good example of that. Chair Stockover asked the applicant to address the questions raised in public input. Youngblade said with regard to the use of south side basement rooms —they are classrooms. She wasn't quite sure she understood all implications regarding the reorientation of the ramp. Her only concern would be to make sure the children had adequate light and egress. Relative to available "Neighborhood Access" space (the front area) when school is not in session is pending the licensing agency's decision. Haberecht said the fence is a 6 foot high galvanized, chain -linked fence. Any additional fences (those that will separate playgrounds) will be 4 foot vinyl clad fences. The ramp question was referred to the campus architect who was in attendance. Haberecht said they've been through much iteration of ramp designs —it was not their first "shot at it" and frankly not their preference from an aesthetic perspective but there are many considerations including the two windows that are introducing light to the lower level. Chair Stockover asked if the ramp was a part of the Board's purview (addition of a permitted use). Deputy City Attorney Eckman said the ramps do not pertain to addition of permitted use as much as they related to the Site Plan Advisory Review where you look at the location, character, and extent of the proposal. Eckman said he would think that ramps fit into the category of character or extent. He said the General Assembly did not give us any definition of what they meant by those terms. He thinks they are so subjective and broad that you can consider them as a part of the character and extent review. Eckman said reference to the ramp could be added into comments. The Board could also disapprove the proposal and the governing body of CSU and could overturn with a 2/3rds vote. Eric Hogestad of CSU said they worked closely with the City's Preservation Office to make sure the ramp did not impact the historic nature of the building. They looked to ensure it was a reversible condition so that at some later date it could be removed and still not harm the building. It is as light a touch as they could come up with. The Preservation Office feels strongly that is the right solution for the building. They did consider a solution very close to the one presented by Mr. Thebold and because of the size of the ramp and how it obscures the building, the tightest foot print possible was preferable by the Preservation Office. He said there might be some more elegant solutions but they impact the historic nature of the building. Haberecht said they will put as many bike racks on the property as there are bike users. They currently have 20 bike spaces and if that's not enough they'll bring more. Board Discussion Member Schmidt asked if once we give a ruling on this it goes to the Board of Governors to make the final recommendation. Haberecht said there's a motion before the Board of Governors at their May meeting to approve the purchase of the property. At that point, if everything is approved, the idea is to have the building occupied and for use by January 1, 2012. They are at this point getting engineering and architecture incorporated to meet that deadline. Member Schmidt asked relative to the neighbor concerned about the ramp, if the Landmark Preservation Commission came to another conclusion, is it too late to change. Haberecht said he doesn't think it's too late to change but he thinks that they've exhausted the available options. Director Dush said it's been to the LPC one or two times. They worked subsequently with staff and design professionals to arrive at this solution. Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 15 existing program presently operates out of Gifford Hall on the C.S.U. campus on Lake Street. By moving to the Washington School, this program could expand and be able to offer services to infants and toddlers and allow students who aspire to careers in early childhood education. They work to model best practices on all levels. She said the request represents an adaptive re -use of a structure that is eligible to be locally designated as a historic building. From an operational perspective, the facility combines an early childhood education center with teaching opportunities for C.S.U. students. There will be full-time staff combined with a varying number of students gaining experience in the field. Approximately 100 children and 36 staff (and students) are expected at full enrollment. They serve children that are pre- school (2.5 to 6) aged. She said she hopes the Board supports this project. Member Schmidt asked if this program was for CSU students and employees or is it open to the public. Youngblade said historically they've met all needs on a first come -first served basis. A good amount of their funding comes from CSU student fees and they have a number of faculty and staff who are also an important part of their clientele. As spots are available, they'll open them up to the community. There will be a staggered registration to ensure they meet campus needs. Member Schmidt asked when they might find out about the neighborhood access and licensing agreement. Does it take years? Youngblade said not years. It should be pretty quick. Schmidt asked if she had any feeling on how that might go. Youngblade said from what she knows they're concerned about the environment and safety of children: lock -down to avoid kids leaving, not opening the area to areas people walking their dogs and leaving dog poop or broken bottles where the children will play. If they can demonstrate there's a place where kids are safe at all times, that would be favorable to their granting the license. Member Schmidt asked if there is a reason we didn't think to use pavers that allows the water to go through. Haberecht said CSU's history in the use of that product has not been successful. Also they have a limited budget. Public Input Dave Thebold has lived at 1113 W. Olive for 5 years. He sees the coming and goings of the school from the south. First, there is strong support for this project both from his family and neighbors. He's quite happy that this is moving forward and he is very supportive of the general project. He had a couple of questions: he asked about the height of the fence in the ECC play areas and will that area be locked. Will the neighborhood space be available at other times? What is the use of the basement on the south side? Thebold said he voiced some of his concerns at neighborhood meetings. He wants to put some pictures to his words and shared a number of slides that showed how the proposed ramp will affect his family's view from their home. He appreciates the landscaping will be enhanced and will soften the effect. He thinks the ramps are coming out pretty far and he wondered if there were some alternatives. He'd like to suggest you take the ramp structure (employed on the north side) and move it to the length of the building. He thinks it softens things. Another suggestion is to take the down ramp and go underneath the decking. That will reduce the amount of impervious surface to 10 square feet (a reduction of roughly 25%). He showed a slide to show how it would look if it was reoriented. Thebold said that bicycle storage in the transition area is a really important consideration. He'd love to see a specific plan for where alternative means of getting places was in place. He said we put such priority on cars to get places but if we want to change the way we think about the world, we'd plan for something different. In summary, he'd like to recommend putting some facilities for bikes. He also thinks turning the ramp allows more space to be used for transition area. He'd ask the Board to consider that. Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 14 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Chief Planner Ted Shepard said the Addition of a Permitted Use has been evaluated by the West Side Neighborhood Plan and the criteria of N-C-L zone district as well as Sections 1.3.4 and 3.5.1, which address compatibility within the zone district and the surrounding area. Since C.S.U. is an entity of the State, the project is governed by the Site Plan Advisory Review process in accordance with the pertinent State Statutes. Applicant's Presentation Fred Haberecht of Colorado State University Operations said the site will operate very much how it has in the past. It's 75% green space. Modifications to the site proper are the introduction of a detached sidewalk along Scott Street and existing street trees along Scott Street will be transplanted a few feet from where they are today to accommodate that sidewalk. Another major landscaping move is to introduce street trees along Olive. There is an existing gravel parking lot that accommodates between 28-30 parking spaces. That lot will become an asphalt parking lot and they will use some of those spaces for a water quality feature at the intersection of the alley and Shields Street. Haberecht said they will be paving the alley as there is an ongoing drainage issue with water coming off the north side of the Washington School. Haberecht said there are no modifications outside the building envelope except for handicapped accessibility. This building was built in 1918 and in accordance with State licensing requirements, handicap ramps, exit doors, and an elevator must. be added as well as a fire sprinkler system. These improvements will be on the north and south sides of the building thus leaving intact the more historically significant east and west elevations. Historic Preservation Staff has worked closely with Colorado State University and the Poudre School District on the school's adaptive rehabilitation. The egress ramps and elevator block have been carefully designed to have the least amount of impact on the building's two architecturally significant elevations. Haberecht noted the deck with a railing is to accommodate classrooms on either end of the building to have a common point of egress with a switchback ramp on the west side of the building. The other rail seen on the bottom is really a guard rail for a ramp that comes out of the basement that comes to grade. Those are the significant changes to the building elevation. They've made an effort at the existing fence and at the lower ramp to screen the ramps from the neighbors across the street on Olive Street. Member Schmidt asked because of historic preservation requirements, wouldn't it have been easier to put an elevator in. Lise Youngblade, Human Development and Family Studies, said the Early Childhood Center (ECC) is a part of the broader program so the licensing requirements are for ADA compliance and specifically for babies and cribs so if there was a fire, they could get kids out quickly by rolling them down the ramps. Haberecht said when the building operated as the Poudre School District Lab School. Approximately 100 — 120 students were dropped off on adjacent city streets under the auspices of a parking manager who managed the traffic flow. He said there are currently 58 students at the ECC. At maximum there will be 100 students when this building is fully occupied. When extrapolated, he thinks 36 students would arrive over a'Y2 hour period in a distributed pattern. He said there will be 24 parking spaces for staff — none will be available for clients. He said students will likely bike to the facility given its proximity to CSU. He said there will be discrete/secure playgrounds by age group. He said the front lawn of the facility, if allowed by licensing, will be made available for the neighborhood at times when the facility is not is use. Lise Youngblade, Human Development and Family Studies, said the program has been in existence for 80 years. They are a laboratory school. The proposed use would be a child care center owned and operated by Colorado State University Department of Human Development and Family Studies. This Planning & Zoning Board April 21, 2011 Page 13 Member Smith said the area is i trans should be and what over time you tar back into equilibrium. He thinks pa it that have multi -family adjacent to thelt that's supposed to happen in the TOD envisioned. He's going to support this tion and many times you're talking about regulation : what they to learn about the market, the neighborhood, and w to bring it I around a commuter campus is typically much wo a than those He thinks it's a great project and fits to a "t" evefi single thing gverlay zone. He said this is kind of a poster c ' d of what was Smith said at work session the Board talk d about shared parking arrangem s that are financed through an improvement district. Staff ind cated that would be brought u the appropriate time with the appropriate folks. In the future, perhaps, ' would be a partnership qpKeen the developer, CSU, the City, and a development authority that would p ovide structured park adjacent to or on campus to take care of the commuter traffic. Member Schmidt asked the applicant if t ey woul a renting by total apartment and not by bedroom. Bailey said that's correct it's too small to do r mate matching —it's going to be rented in total. Member Schmidt moved the Plan g Standard to Section 4.9(E) (1) — Ro, Section 2.8.2(H) in that gra ng of the the plan will promote the eneral purp would comply. The des(gn of the flat i and gables that breaWlhe roofline, res impact of the building. The Landmark flat roof building because it would be I included in the Facts and Findings in! seconded the motion. The motion pas id Zoning Board approve the request for Modification of Pitch. It's found to meet the criteria for approval in codification would not be detrimental to the public good, ;e of the Standard equal to or better than a Plan that A, when combined with a variety of fagade articulation is in a less overall mass and height thereby reducing the reservation Commission expressed a preference for the 1s massive than a pitched roof building. Those are &ion D on page 8 of the staff report. Member Campana Member Schmidt made a motion the Plann Pura Vida Place based on the Facts and Fii Hatfield seconded the motion. The motion and Zoning Board approve the PDP # 110003 for Vs found in the staff report on page 8. Member ;s d 7:0. Project: CSU — Washington School —Addition of Permitted Use and Site Plan Advisory Review, #SPA11001 Project Description: This is a request to convert the Washington School from a public school for elementary and intermediate education to a child care center. The building contains approximately 18,350 square feet on 1.75 acres on Block 7 of the Scott Sherwood Subdivision. The building and playground would be preserved. The east and west elevations would remain unchanged but there would be renovations to the north and south elevations to add an elevator and handicap ramps to meet access requirements. The site is located between Shields Street and Scott Street and bounded by Olive Street on the south and the east — west alley on the north. The site is zoned N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density. Recommendation: Approval of the Addition of Permitted Use and the Site Plan Advisory Review